Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
. >> what about a carbon tax? >> well, it works out to be similar. i think, what is it? for every $10, it's about 10 cents a gallon, 8 cents a gallon for gasoline. so it's another tax. i just think we have to be very careful because it affects consumers so broadly, and there are unintended consequences. at the same time these advanced technology vehicles, as tom brought up, hybrids are going to have to compete with better and better conventional vehicles, and batter in electric cars, will have to compete with better and better hybrids. it becomes very difficult. it's helpful when the our market signals saying this is what society values. society values reducing carbon, therefore, therefore the there's a path, therefore there is an incentive or something like that. but very difficult to actually implement in a way that has become fair and balanced. >> i know that auto countries have been working to show that there's a very direct correlation between high gasoline prices and the selling of more fuel-efficient cars, hybrids, electric cars. and that's political "inconvenient truth" in the hig
, by restoring clinton-era tax rates for the top 1% of income earners. that's what we've done so far. i think it probably is safe to say that the tax rate discussion is probably done, but we have not even begun to discuss tax loopholes. why should millionaires get more tax benefit against their charitable contributions than middle-class families do? why should a billionaire who builds a wing on a museum and puts his name on it get more tax bang for his charitable buck than the middle-class family who gives to their local church? is protecting that benefit for high-end charitable donors more important than addressing our deficit? how about tax subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world, the big oil behemoths? the american taxpayer is asked to provide money to big and often foreign oil companies. is keeping big oil lobbyists happy with subsidies from the american people more important than addressing our deficit? should companies and wealthy individuals be allowed to hide their money from the tax man in offshore accounts while working families pay their taxes fair and square? is pr
start-up companies eligible for the existing research and development or r&d tax credit. and today i'm proud to reintroduce that legislation as the start-up innovation credit act of 2013 with our original cosponsors, as well as senators blunt, stabenow and moran. this broad bipartisan support i think suggests that this is a bill whose time has come. although we represent among the cosponsors very different parts of our country and very different backgrounds, all of us know that to strengthen our economy, we have to support innovation and entrepreneurship. each of us is committed to fostering the kind of environment that supports the private sector and which turns ideas into innovations, innovations into products, products into companies that help create good jobs. under current policy, one way we do that federally is by supporting research and development through the existing r&d tax credit. companies that invest in r&d generate new products which sparks new industries with spillover benefits for all kinds of sectors. that's why there's long been strong bipartisan support for the exi
an outdated and anticompetitive tax code, and to streamline government bureaucracies that are literally suffering job creation. they have done their jobs while senate democrats have tried to keep their priorities secret. now, we know senate democrats don't like the house budgets, and we know they don't even support the president's budgets, at least not with their votes. what we haven't known for nearly four years is what they're for, because they have refused to put their plans for the country down on paper and actually vote for them. now it's my hope that the democratic sudden interest in passing a budget isn't just another attempt to actually raise taxes. as i've said repeatedly, we're done with the revenue issue. the president has already said that the so-called rich are now paying their -- quote -- "fair share" -- end quote, and of course middle-class families are already on the hook for new taxes as a result of obamacare. so the question is who would be in the firing line this time? and at what cost? look, struggling families shouldn't have to pick up the tab again for washington'
austerity or the taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent. we are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of athens, magid and world. we're starting to see it in the parliaments of berlin, helsinki and the hague. and yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the eu very dramatically here in the united kingdom. europe's leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. indeed, we have a duty to act on them. and not just to fix the problems in the eurozone. for just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis, so, too, in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties and the eurozone have been overcome. now, the biggest danger to the european union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. in its long history europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point. and my point is this. more the same on the secure a long-term future for the eurozone.
reform the entitlement programs, put tax reform in place, go through regular order in the finance committee as the chairman and others called for, to ensure we can get this under control. it's a commonsense proposal. we did it two years ago. most democrats and most republicans here on the floor supported it in the past. democrats in the house have also supported it, about 95 of them. it's a dollar-for-dollar reduction over ten years as we raise the debt limit. for folks who are wondering today -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. portman: thank you, madam chair. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, january 23, i think it was a wednesday, something marvelous happened. what was that? the house, on a strong bipartisan basis, passed a bill which would raise the debt limit, extend the debt limit to may 18. bipartisan. speaker boehner is to be commended. this town is criticized for its lack of working together, it's too partisan. speaker boehner found a solution to help us relieve the pressure
in louisiana including the tax reform he's just launched in the past few weeks, what he's doing is trying to think about how at this moment at a time when globalization's putting enormous pressures on working class voters, at a time when the economy is going through a very complicated, difficult moment when it's not clear how to get back to growth, he's thinking creatively about how to use the strength of his state to build on its weaknesseses. and i think at the national level that's what conservatives have to do. to some extempt, it's being done. i would say the policy agenda that has to come at the end of that conversation is not fully worked out by any means, but the questions are being asked. i think the direction of thinking has been helpful even in the wake of the election. if you listen to what people like marco rubio or paul ryan have been saying, it's different from what they themselves were saying six months ago, a year ago. i think the focus is turning to the right place. that doesn't mean that he'll persuade the public, but it certainly helps to ask the right question if you'
finance minister started an initiative on this that this year g8 will look at tax evasion and tax fraud. i think it's enormously important issue, and i think the regulation on the shadow banking system, um, also needs to play a very important role for the russia meeting for the g20. we have quite a lot of regulation for our banks, basel iii comes to mind here. here, actually, we have to be vigilant that the lending capacity that is to boost, after all, economic growth doesn't get too contained, too limited, and i can only hope and join our partners in the united states to introdiscuss deuce this -- introduce this as well, otherwise a new imbalance here. through better regulation of banks, the capital that they need to the capital reserves that they need to have, we also see moral hazard in the sense that people increasingly seem to fly into the shadows of shadow banking. we were at one in saying when we agreed this at the g20 and the thought that every financial instrument, um, every financial be product, every financial market needs to be placed in regulation. we are very far from that. i
-paying jobs in these industries will be paying the taxes to some other country, will be simply an economy and some of the country. you want to know what america is special? one of the reasons why it special is because for over 200 years we have been a collection of the world's best and brightest to a magnet that attracts people here and now have an immigration system in the 21st century that is making a very difficult to achieve. that's what this effort is to the other concern i heard is what about folks that are in this country now? this is a legitimate concern when people raise it, i don't get upset about that. that is a very legitimate concern. about the kids are raised here and go into these intricate, will they be hurt if you have seen the need, they need far exceeds what we are producing. so that's not an immediate concern but here's the other. that is the startling figure that was used earlier. that for every 100, 100 foreign-born s.t.e.m. workers we're creating 260 some odd jobs. it's indisputable that these jobs create jobs for people right down the line in this process. if you'r
in north dakota former state tax commissioner and state attorney general heidi heitkamp was elected in november. and in maine, former governor angus king, was elected to the u.s. senate as an independent. he replaces republican olympia snowe who retired. >> on thursday, president obama's pic to be defense secretary chuck hagel will testify at a senate confirmation hearing. we will have live coverage from the senate armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span radio. >> the 2005 real id act establishes standards for drivers licenses and other documents based on recommendations from the 9/11 commission. 13 states are fully compliant with a lot today. next, a conversation on state id standards posted by the heritage foundation. this is 50 minutes. >> good morning, welcome to the heritage foundation. we, of course, welcome those who join us on our heritage.org website. those that will be joining us on c-span as well. i would ask everyone in house if you will check to make sure cell phones have been turned off as we prepare to begin. always helpful. i am pleased tod
, not to mention tax breaks that encourage companies that -- that allow companies to deduct the cost of moving their plant overseas against their federal tax, those are the kinds of things that average americans are waiting for the house of representatives to act, legislation that will make a real difference in their lives right now. i said i'm fine with the no budget, no pay act. we should pass a budget. we should move forward on that. we need to raise the debt ceiling and stop playing politics with this, but let the house of representatives get moving on the issues that affect everyday americans. that's all about jobs, that's all about this economic recovery. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: yes, the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. for the senate, the letter of resignation of senator john f. kerry of massachusetts, effective friday, february 1, at 4:00 p.m. without o
taxes and you will have to pay a fine. and what you will get is basically the equivalent of a nonresident visa that allows you to work here. you do not qualify for federal financial benefits, so you are not a strain. i've heard that concern raised, this is going to place a strain on our social services. as a nonimmigrant visa holder you do not qualify -- under existing law now you do not qualify for federal benefits. what you get is a work perm. the ability to be here legally. we know where you are, we know where you live. you pay taxes. you've paid a fine. this is not amnesty and you have a nonimmigrant visa. there is nothing you can do with that visa is stay here and work. you can travel to visit relatives. you can't turn that into citizenship. they will have to remain in that probationary phase for a significant period of time, not an unreasonable period of time but a significant period of time. after that period of time elapsed and if they have complied with all the requirements of that probearingsary period and if -- probation ary period and if it is certified the en
tax dollars, billions of them. and now all of a sudden some are suggesting we should change the rules when we are hit by the first major disaster to hit the new york city region in a very long time. that's not fair. that's not right. and we have argued against it, and i hope my colleagues will defeat the lee amendment. and i also say to my colleagues that this is not just dollars and cents. these are people who care, are waiting, homeowners waiting to rebuild their homes. they haven't moved back in. small business owners who are hanging on by a thread after building a business for 25 years. we know when the hand of god strikes, it's overwhelming for them. take rita from emerald magic lawn care. her company helps local families, schools and businesses with lawn care in the spring and summer and around the holidays they help with decorations and lights. but emerald magic's business was interrupted for many weeks. the client base dried up. rita's business will be in huge trouble. it may not survive if she doesn't get a lifeline and get one now. so this is very important. week after week,
majority support on a cloture vote: the dream act, bring jobs home act, small business jobs and tax relief act, paying fair share act of 2012, repeal big oil tax subsidies act, teachers and first responders back-to-work act, american jobs act of 2011, public safety employer-employee cooperation act, paycheck fairness act, creating american jobs and ending offshoring act. now, again -- again, it's not that the bill was filibustered. the right to even debate these bills and vote on them was filibustered. one thing, he go on the bill and they filibuster. no, we couldn't even debate it. even though a majority of senators voted for cloture. not 60 but a majority. so the majority thwarted from even bringing these up and debating them and even letting people offer amendments. now, it used to come that if a senator opposed a bill, he or she would engage in a spirited debate, try to change people's minds, attempt to persuade the public, offer amendments, vote "no," and then try to hold members who voted "yes" accountable at the ballot box. isn't that what it's about? in contrast, today, to quote fo
spending and i don't think we can continue to tax the american economy. we need economic growth but it's about prioritizing spending. i have conservative beliefs foreign aid can be useful, but we have to get our spending out of control. we utilize the position to encourage the president to work with us in good faith to solve the debt and deficit issue >> i spent six months i guess it was or five months as a member of the super committee. and i put an enormous amount of energy and hope that we would be able to get the bigger bargain. i'm not here to go through the details of why we didn't, that there was a very hard line monitor negotiating position that prevented us from being able to come to an agreement which incidentally we just came to. but we can to this with far less on the table and far less accomplished than we would have if we had come to that agreement six months ago or a year ago. my hope is yes, i certainly will weigh in on that and the degree that it does not impact on - devotee to do my job and the ability of the state department to be able to do its job. we cannot reduce
of the tax around 4 p.m. on that day, and you're involved widely in the coordinator response which included the department of defense at the white house but did not speak to the president until later that evening. when did you talk to the president? >> two things. on a first lady made, carbon, the arb disagreed with that and did find that budget issues were asked to speak she testified under oath. >> that's why have an independent group like arb. that's why he was created to look at everything. so i think -- >> everybody has their own -- >> i think it's important -- [talking over each other] >> what about when you saw the president? when did you see the president? >> i talked to the present at the end of the day, but i've been in constant communication with the national security advisor. i had been on secure videoconferences with high level officials in the white house, in the defense department -- >> she testified she had witnessed the death in real-time, the attack on a monitor. at any time did you see the initial attack on a monitor to? >> congressman, there was no monitor. there was no
that such presentations of a tax that would happen again a couple other questions i know you put the individuals defined as culpable by the board on the last administrative leave what do you anticipate will be the final resolution of the status in the department and the accountability review board didn't identify any individuals above the secretary assistant secretary level as accountable for the failures of the benghazi mission? use of the numerous tables requesting and begging for additional security resources sent by the ambassador were never sent by the state officials above the assistant secretary or assistant secretary charlene. i know that you care about the people that work with you and the department so given the fact your testimony is in these multiple requests and no levels of these requests doesn't that give you some concerns about the flow of information in the department and maybe some of your other links of ability to prioritize and get your attention serious issues you said that you get hundreds of thousands of the time and these cables directly i understanding you don't read them all or
the senate democrats and president george herbert walker bush passed an agreement, including tax increases, to at last begin to tackle the deficit. and i remind everyone here as i take my leave from the senate, when president george h.w. bush returned from agreeing to a deficit reduction agreement at andrews air force base, he wrote in his personal diary that he might well have sealed his fate as a one-term president. he did what he thought was right for the country and he laid the groundwork for our ability to three times balance the budget at the end of the 1990's. that's courage, and the senate and the congress and the country need more of it. frankly, the problems that we live through today come from individual choices of senators themselves, not the rules. when an individual senator or a colludeing caucus determine that the comity essential to an institution like the senate is a barrier to individual ambition or party ambition, the country loses. those are the moments in which the senate fulfills not its responsibility to the people but its reputation as a sanctuary of gridlock. i ask
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18